SEFAZ AL: IPVA (ano atual)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses the authentication flow (browser login, token copy), the difference between permanent (non-expiring via config) and session-only (pastable token), and the behavior of no-args calls (get a link). This adds value beyond the sparse annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) and gives the agent a clear expectation of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact (two sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose ('log in in the browser'). Every clause serves a function—auth method, token usage, and permanent vs. session options—with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it covers the browser login flow, both invocation modes (with and without token), and the persistent configuration option. No ambiguities remain about how to use the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema has zero description coverage, the tool description fully explains the token parameter ('<jwt>') and the no-args case. It explicitly states when to provide a token (after user pastes) and when to omit it (to get a link), compensating completely for the schema's lack of documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool authenticates MCP.AI for IDE agents, with a specific verb (log in) and resource (access token). It also distinguishes between session-only and permanent configuration methods, differentiating it from sibling tools like connect or report_bug.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: recommends adding the token to config for a permanent connection, or pasting it for session-only, or calling with no args to get the login link. Clearly explains the alternative approaches, making it easy for an agent to choose the right invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds valuable context about the response states (authenticated:true, empty pending[], connect_url). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers the return values and states. It addresses both the success case and the missing-credential case, making it complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties). The description appropriately focuses on the output and behavior rather than parameter details. This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns connection status and URLs, and specifies the behavior under different conditions (all connected vs missing credentials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate, which likely performs authentication rather than status checking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when the tool is useful (checking connection status) and its behavior in different states, but it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The sibling tool names imply the distinction, but it could be more explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining that invoke runs MCPs even when they are not installed, without bloating the toolkit, and that paid or authenticated MCPs may return links that the user must open before a retry. It also discloses workspace owner/admin requirements for write operations and distinguishes installed_in_toolkit vs installed_in_workspace, which is important behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long, but the length is largely justified because the tool bundles a marketplace, execution engine, install manager, billing actions, and prompt library. It is front-loaded with the core search→describe→invoke flow, and uses a clear block to set the one-off invoke semantics apart. It would earn a 5 if it were structured with headings or a concise action table, but it remains dense and information-rich.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 23-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the most critical context: the full search/describe/invoke pipeline, why invoke does not install the MCP permanently, when install is appropriate, auth and checkout link behavior, billing actions, prompt library behavior, installed-state flags, and write permissions. However, some actions and parameters are still incomplete, such as resume, immediate, tier_slug, and the exact expected output shape for real-world invoke results, so an agent may still guess in ex less common paths.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 23 parameters and 0% schema-covered parameter descriptions in the schema itself, the description carries a heavy burden. It explains the central action, mcp_id/tool_id selection, and prompt-related actions reasonably, but several boundary parameters are omitted or left implicit: arguments (the invoke payload), query, limit, immediate, tier_slug, prompt_vars, conversation, and cancellation/report fields are not mapped to their own semantics. Thus the description helps but does not fully compensate for the zero-coverage schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as the mcp.ai marketplace, explains its catalog role, and breaks down the core search → describe → invoke → install flow. It distinguishes the tool's multiple responsibilities from sibling tools by naming concrete sub-actions and intent examples such as 'find an MCP that does X'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use each action: prefer invoke for one-off use, use install only for permanent toolkit additions, use list_tools for currently callable items, and use request_mcp when nothing fits. It also explains permission requirements for writes and describes retry semantics when an invoke returns a connect or checkout link.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, indicating it's a write operation that is safe to retry. The description adds the expectation that a conversation array is needed for reproduction, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other side effects, authentication requirements, or what happens on the server, so the added transparency is limited.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds a crucial usage instruction. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple reporting tool with three parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior: what to report and how to include reproduction context. The idempotentHint annotation clarifies retry safety. It does not specify response behavior, but that is not critical for this tool type. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation' parameter as containing recent messages for reproduction and implies 'message' is the content of the report. However, the 'context' parameter is left unexplained, and the description does not provide full syntax or format details, leaving some parameters under-defined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Report a bug, missing feature, or send feedback.' It uses a specific verb (report) and resource (bug/feedback) and is distinct from sibling tools like authenticate, connect, and show_version, which serve different functions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for usage by instructing to 'Include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (i.e., when there is a conversation to reproduce an issue). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none exist among the siblings, so the guidance is adequate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description goes beyond annotations by mentioning no platform credentials required, prepaid payment per query, data is not confidential, and LGPD compliance responsibilities. These add behavioral context not present in readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a compact paragraph of about three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes necessary operational details without excessive fluff, though the LGPD sentence could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the source, scope, payment, credentials, and legal aspects, which is sufficient for a simple query tool with two params. It lacks explicit return format details, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'placa' and 'renavam'. While these are common in Brazilian vehicle context, the tool description provides no semantic meaning, forcing the agent to infer from naming.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool queries IPVA (current year) from official sources, specifically SEFAZ AL. It uses a specific verb (consulta) and resource (IPVA), and is clearly distinct from sibling tools which are platform utilities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides context for when to use: for official IPVA data, without platform credentials, and with prepaid credit. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but the sibling list makes it obvious this is a data lookup. The payment and LGPD notes offer additional usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific scope (platform and adapter versions) but no additional behavioral context like output format or potential latency. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It fully conveys the tool's purpose without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, read-only version-inspection tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. There are no hidden inputs, side effects, or complex behaviors to disclose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is nothing to explain. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and clearly identifies the resource ('current MCP platform and adapter versions'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which cover authentication, connectivity, marketplace, bug reporting, IPVA consultation, and toolkit info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it (when version information is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter utility, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds value by detailing the specific state elements it returns (installed MCPs, statuses, accounts, catalog tool counts), going beyond the generic annotation hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns the current toolkit state'), followed by a clear list of contained items. No filler, no redundancy, every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (no params, no input schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the format of 'connection status' or whether output is a snapshot, but for an agent deciding whether to call this tool, the key return structure is adequately described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%, so the description need not explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description provides context on the output instead, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Returns' with a clear resource (toolkit state) and enumerates exactly what is included: installed MCPs, connection status, connected accounts, and catalog tool counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like authenticate/connect (actions) and show_version (likely a simpler version string).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

While no explicit alternatives are named, the description makes it clear this is an inspection tool for current state, which is distinct from action-oriented siblings. It implies when to use it (when you need to see connections or tool counts) without explicitly stating when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.